Text 3

　　In recent years, railroads have been combining with each other, merging into super systems, causing heightened concerns about monopoly. As recently as 1995, the top four railroads accounted for under 70 percent of the total ton�瞞iles moved by rails. Next year, after a series of mergers is completed, just four railroads will control well over 90 percent of all the freight moved by major rail carriers.

　　Supporters of the new super systems argue that these mergers will allow for substantial cost reductions and better coordinated service. Any threat of monopoly, they argue, is removed by fierce competition from trucks. But many shippers complain that for heavy bulk commodities traveling long distances, such as coal, chemicals, and grain, trucking is too costly and the railroads therefore have them by the throat.

　　The vast consolidation within the rail industry means that most shippers are served by only one rail company. Railroads typically charge such “captive” shippers 20 to 30 percent more than they do when another railroad is competing for the business. Shippers who feel they are being overcharged have the right to appeal to the federal government’s Surface Transportation Board for rate relief, but the process is expensive, time consuming, and will work only in truly extreme cases.

　　Railroads justify rate discrimination against captive shippers on the grounds that in the long run it reduces everyone’s cost. If railroads charged all customers the same average rate, they argue, shippers who have the option of switching to trucks or other forms of transportation would do so, leaving remaining customers to shoulder the cost of keeping up the line. It’s theory to which many economists subscribe, but in practice it often leaves railroads in the position of determining which companies will flourish and which will fail.“ Do we really want railroads to be the arbiters of who wins and who loses in the marketplace?” asks Martin Bercovici, a Washington lawyer who frequently represents shipper.

　　Many captive shippers also worry they will soon be hit with a round of huge rate increases. The railroad industry as a whole, despite its brightening fortuning fortunes, still does not earn enough to cover the cost of the capital it must invest to keep up with its surging traffic. Yet railroads continue to borrow billions to acquire one another, with Wall Street cheering them on. Consider the 10.2 billion bid by Norfolk Southern and CSX to acquire Conrail this year. Conrail’s net railway operating income in 1996 was just million, less than half of the carrying costs of the transaction. Who’s going to pay for the rest of the bill? Many captive shippers fear that they will, as Norfolk Southern and CSX increase their grip on the market.

　　近幾年來，鐵路公司紛紛合并，組成超級集團，這引起人們對壟斷行為的極大關注。在不久之前的1995年，四家大型鐵路公司占有整個鐵路運營量的70%不到。第二年，在一系列兼并完成之后，四家鐵路公司將控制90%以上的鐵路貨運業務。

　　支持超級鐵路集團的人辯稱，兼并將帶來成本的大幅降低，能夠更好地協調服務。他們認為由于公路運輸的激烈競爭，壟斷的威脅已經不復存在。但許多托運人卻抱怨說，諸如煤炭、化學制品和糧食這類需要長途運輸的大宗貨物，公路運輸的成本太高。因而那些鐵路運輸公司就會制約住他們。

　　鐵路運輸行業內的大規模合并意味著只有一家公司將為大多數托運人提供服務。通常，鐵路公司對這些“受牽制的”客戶的收費要比有另一競爭對手時高20%~30%。如果托運人認為收費過高，他們有權上訴到聯邦政府的“陸路運輸委員會”以爭取調低價格。但是，這個過程既耗財也耗時，并且只有在真正極端特殊的情況下才奏效。

　　鐵路公司認為對“受牽制的”客戶進行區別對待理由充分，其依據是從長遠來看這樣做會降低所有人的成本。他們辯稱，如果鐵路公司向所有客戶收取同樣的均價，一些托運人就會轉而選擇通過公路或其他交通工具運輸，而由剩下的客戶來承擔鐵路正常運作的開銷。這種理論得到了多數經濟學家的贊同，但在實際操作中，它使鐵路公司獲得了決定哪家公司興盛哪家公司倒閉的權利。馬丁·貝科維奇是華盛頓一位常常作為托動人代理人的律師，他問道：“我們是否真的想讓鐵路公司成為獨裁者，決定在市場上誰勝出誰失敗呢?

　　許多“受牽制的”客戶還擔心他們很快將遭遇一輪新的大幅漲價。從整體來說，雖然鐵路行業財大氣粗，但其收入仍然不足以支付為滿足猛增的運輸量而需要進行的固定資產投資。然而由于有華爾街鼓動，鐵路公司仍然繼續貸款數十億美元來進行相互兼并。想想今年南諾弗克公司和CSX公司為兼并康雷公司所花的102億美元吧�？道坠�司1996年鐵路運營純收入為4.27億美元，還不足這宗交易運作成本的一半。誰來支付其余的費用呢?許多“受牽制的”托運人擔心會由他們來承擔，因為南諾弗克和CSX公司加強了對市場的控制。

　　51. According to those who support mergers, railway monopoly is unlikely because.

　　[A] cost reduction is based on competition

　　[B] services call for cross�瞭rade coordination

　　[C] outside competitors will continue to exist

　　[D] shippers will have the railway by the throat

　　52. What is many captive shippers’ attitude towards the consolidation in the rail industry?

　　[A] Indifferent.[B] Supportive.

　　[C] Indignant.[D] Apprehensive.

　　53. It can be inferred from paragraph 3 that.

　　[A] shippers will be charged less without a rival railroad

　　[B] there will soon be only one railroad company nationwide

　　[C] overcharged shippers are unlikely to appeal for rate relief

　　[D] a government board ensures fair play in railway business

　　54. The word “arbiters” (line 6, paragraph 4) most probably refers to those.

　　[A] who work as coordinators[B] who function as judges

　　[C] who supervise transactions

　　[D] who determine the price

　　55. According to the text, the cost increase in the rail industry is mainly caused by.

　　[A] the continuing acquisition[B] the growing traffic

　　[C] the cheering Wall Street

　　[D] the shrinking market